At 07:04 AM 11/11/99 , shapj@us.ibm.com wrote:
>First, I caution that your statement betrays a fairly complete lack of
>familiarity with the serious security literature.
More later, but I want to respond to this in real time.
I freely and openly admit this lack of familiarity. My work, from agoric
computation to E, stands at the intersection of several other disciplines:
OS security, distributed object language design, cryptography, economics,
game theory, contract law, and what is variously called studies in
spontaneous orders (Hayek) or studies of complex adaptive systems (Holland).
The E work only stands between the first 3. Once done, it forms the
foundation to get back to the others -- the agoric agenda I started with.
I am mostly unfamiliar with the serious literature in every one of these
fields. I know, for example, that I occasionally irritate crypto types by
not speaking their language in their way. How good my work is in each of
these fields is for practitioners in each of these fields to judge.
Unfortunately, I will not help them by putting too much work into learning
their language, as I have bigger fish to fry.
Fortunately, various members of the list, such as yourself, have various
different balances of expertise, and speak the language of different subsets
of these communities. I depend on y'all to tell me which other literature
is the stuff I really must read -- to learn concepts, not language. And I
depend on y'all to help me communicate to the various communities on whose
territory I'm trespassing.
Cheers,
--MarkM